Introduction: The long-heralded dawn of Artificial General Intelligence, once envisioned as a profound singularity, is rapidly being recast as a boardroom declaration. This cynical reframing raises critical questions about who truly defines intelligence, what real-world value it holds, and whether we’re witnessing a scientific breakthrough or simply a strategic corporate maneuver.

Key Points

• The definition of Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) is being co-opted from a scientific or philosophical pursuit into a corporate and geopolitical battleground, undermining its very meaning.
• The shift from AGI as a “singularity” to “just a Tuesday” signals a concerning commodification of a potentially transformative technology, driven by market valuation rather than rigorous scientific consensus.
• The proliferation of “AI slop machines” alongside powerful creative tools highlights the current generative AI paradox, foreshadowing a future where vaguely defined AGI could accelerate a deluge of low-quality digital content.

In-Depth Analysis

The original article’s casual dismissal of the “singularity” as merely “a Tuesday” is perhaps the most telling observation from the past week’s AI chatter. What was once the stuff of philosophical debate and science fiction—a moment when artificial intelligence surpasses human cognitive abilities across all domains—is now being negotiated in legal documents between OpenAI and Microsoft. This isn’t just a semantic shift; it’s a profound reorientation of AGI’s significance, from an existential event to a corporate milestone.

Who decides when AGI is achieved? The very notion that a “panel of experts” will declare “God” (read: AGI) exposes the absurdity of the current trajectory. This isn’t about empirical, independently verifiable criteria; it’s about gatekeeping, market control, and, ultimately, intellectual property. OpenAI’s restructuring and its updated deal with Microsoft are less about scientific progress and more about establishing a dominant position to capitalize on a future, vaguely defined, “AGI-powered” economy. We’ve seen this playbook before: tech giants staking claims on emerging technologies, often defining the terms of engagement to their advantage.

Consider the parallel with Adobe Max’s recent announcements. On one hand, genuinely impressive creative tools; on the other, “slop machines” designed to flood social platforms with AI-generated garbage. This duality perfectly encapsulates the current state of AI: immense potential for augmentation and creation, but also a rapidly expanding capacity for automated mediocrity. If the current generation of generative AI, which is far from “general,” can already produce such a spectrum of quality, what does it mean when a “panel of experts” declares AGI? Will this “general intelligence” simply be more efficient at producing even more sophisticated slop, or will it genuinely usher in a new era of profound innovation? The commercial incentive leans heavily towards the former – speed and volume over nuanced insight. The real-world impact is a further blurring of the lines between genuine content and AI-generated facsimile, making discerning truth and value increasingly difficult for consumers and creators alike. This corporate-driven AGI definition risks reducing a monumental concept to a mere feature set in a product roadmap.

Contrasting Viewpoint

While it’s easy to be cynical, one could argue that a pragmatic approach to defining AGI, even if imperfect, is a necessary evil. In the absence of a universally accepted scientific definition, allowing key industry players like OpenAI and Microsoft to establish a framework, however self-serving, provides a starting point for dialogue, investment, and, critically, the development of guardrails. A corporate “panel of experts” might be seen as better than no governance at all, particularly concerning the ethical implications and potential societal disruptions of true general intelligence. Furthermore, the “Tuesday” scenario, while demystifying, could be interpreted as a positive step towards integrating advanced AI into daily life in a managed, incremental fashion, rather than a cataclysmic “singularity” that could lead to panic or uncontrolled deployment. This perspective emphasizes that any definition, even a flawed one, provides a tangible target and facilitates the crucial conversations required for responsible technological progression.

Future Outlook

Over the next 1-2 years, expect an escalating war of narratives around AGI. More companies will make “AGI-adjacent” claims, irrespective of their actual capabilities, leveraging investor hype and media attention. The “panel of experts” model will likely be replicated by other consortiums or governments, leading to a cacophony of competing AGI definitions without any clear, independent validation. The biggest hurdle will be establishing truly objective, transparent, and non-self-serving criteria for AGI that are accepted globally by the scientific community, not just a handful of powerful corporations. Simultaneously, regulatory bodies will struggle to keep pace, likely focusing on specific AI applications rather than attempting to define or govern AGI itself. The “slop machine” problem will worsen, demanding innovative solutions for content provenance and authenticity, or risk a global digital information crisis.

For more context on the challenges of defining and regulating advanced AI, see our deep dive on [[AI Governance Frameworks]].

Further Reading

---

Original Source: God will be declared by a panel of experts (The Verge AI)

阅读中文版 (Read Chinese Version)